alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

LEO F. SCHWEITZER, III,

PLAINTIFF,

v.

UNITED STATES ET. AL.,

DEFENDANTS.

CIVIL ACTION

No. 05-5242

MEMORANDUM/ORDER

July 23, 2007

Leo F. Schweitzer, III initiated this action on September 7, 2005, by filing a

petition for habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and/or a writ of error coram

nobis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1651(a). Schweitzer had filed an earlier habeas petition with

this court in February 2004. Schweitzer v. Mobley, Civil No. 04-825. In July 2004, this

court, noting that Schweitzer had been released on parole, dismissed that habeas petition

as moot. Docket # 13, Civil No. 04-825. 

On October 7, 2005, his parole having been revoked, Schweitzer filed, in the

Middle District of Pennsylvania, a petition for habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2241 and/or a writ of error coram nobis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). Schweitzer v.

United States, M.D.Pa. Civil No. 05-2042. The Middle District petition was verbatim the

Case 2:05-cv-05242-LP Document 2 Filed 07/23/07 Page 1 of 3
 Section 1915 governs proceedings in forma pauperis. Subsection (e)(2) states that: 1

(2) Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the

court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . .

(B) the action or appeal--

(i) is frivolous or malicious;

(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted . . .

same as the petition filed a month earlier in this court. Compare Docket # 1, M.D.Pa.

Civil No. 05-2042 with Docket # 1, E.D.Pa. Civil No. 05-5242. On April 27, 2006, Judge

Kosik of the Middle District issued a memorandum and order denying Schweitzer’s

petition on the merits. Specifically, Judge Kosik determined that Schweitzer had failed to

demonstrate that 18 U.S.C. § 2255 was “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of

his detention,” and “failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with regard to his

challenges to sentence computation by the BOP.” Docket # 33, M.D.Pa. Civil No. 05-

2042. On January 31, 2007, the Court of Appeals, citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B),

dismissed Schweitzer’s appeal from Judge Kosik’s decision. In its opinion, the Court of 1

Appeals noted that: “a writ of error coram nobis may not be used by a petitioner in

custody to circumvent AEDPA’s limitations on second or successive § 2255 petitions,”

and that Schweitzer had not received the Court of Appeals’s permission to file a second

or successive § 2255 petition. Schweitzer v. United States, 215 Fed. Appx. 120, 2007 WL

295315 (3d Cir. 2007). Following the guidance of the Court of Appeals, this court will

dismiss Schweitzer’s identical habeas petition, filed on September 7, 2005 in this court.

Case 2:05-cv-05242-LP Document 2 Filed 07/23/07 Page 2 of 3
AND NOW, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. Leo F. Schweitzer’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED.

2. A Certificate of Appealability is NOT GRANTED.

BY THE COURT:

 /s/ Louis H. Pollak 

Pollak, J.

Case 2:05-cv-05242-LP Document 2 Filed 07/23/07 Page 3 of 3
Annual nvironmental ort 

2010 PROGRESS UPDATE 

Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport 

(ATL), the world,s busiest airport, is owned and 

operated by the City of Atlanta (City), Department of 

Aviation (DOA). ATL's environmental compliance and 

management is extremely important to the City of 

Atlanta. The group challenged with this responsibil ity 

is DOA's Planning and Environmental Division, 

formerly known as the Environmental and Technical 

Services (ETS) Division. 

In 2009, the DOA documented and reported the environmental 

compliance and management efforts made by the Department 

in the form of an Annual Environmental Report (AER). The 

2009 AER (http://www.atlanta-airport.com/docs/Airport/ 

Environmental/2oog%2oAnnual%2oEnv%2oReport_Revised%2o 

5-27-10.pdf environmental) provided a background on past and 

on-going initiatives in 2oog. Progress made on these initiatives and 

additional efforts undertaken since then are provided in this 2010 

Progress Update . 

..A. Hartsfield-Jackson 

International Airport 
80,000,000 T 1.6 

_....._ li; 

60,000,000 1.2 g> 

- -

... 

40 "' ,000,000 0.8 "' ~ 20.000,000 0.4 ~ "' 0 0 0 ~ 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 

-+-Annual Quantity Disposed (lbs) 

- Annual Passenger Enplanement 

Quantity Disposed/ Passenger Enplanement 
Aircraft Rescue and fnef1ght111g 

Tra1mng Faohty 

2008 2009 2010 

• 70DNL 

65 DNL
<PAGE>   1



                                                                     EXHIBIT 23


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements on
Form S-3 (File No. 2-77062), and Forms S-8 (File Nos. 2-77060, 2-91694,
33-43955, 33-61759, 33-48287 and 333-05059) of our reports dated February 20,
1997, on our audits of the consolidated financial statements and related
financial statement schedule of Instron Corporation as of December 31, 1996, and
1995, and for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 1996
which reports are included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.





Boston, Massachusetts                            /s/COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.
March 31, 1997                                   -----------------------------
                                                 COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.




                                       43
LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS MORE HOLLAND 

BY: THOMAS MORE HOLLAND

IDENTIFICATION NO.: 43517

1522 LOCUST STREET

GRACE HALL

PHILADELPHIA, PA 19102

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

 

JOSEPH MARINO §

Plaintiff, § 

v. §

§

KENT LINE INTERNATIONAL §

d/b/a VOYAGEUR SHIPPING LTD., et al. § CIVIL ACTION NO: 02-CV-4489

Defendants. §

§

 § 

 § 

PLAINTIFF’S SUPPLEMENT ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S

KENT LINE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Plaintiff neglected to specifically argue concerning the inference raised by

Crouse 5, Exhibit E, a letter from Captain Biggs (who was not presented for deposition

testimony despite the Court’s order). Crouse 5 is a letter of protest from Captain Biggs.

This letter of protest was filed only after a discharge of cargo in Gloucester City but

before the next delivery in Fairless Hill Pennsylvania. 

Plaintiff incorporates his previous argument which included the factual

inference to be drawn, whether the crew of Movant intentionally withheld the

knowledge of the latent, less than obvious dangerous condition, by not filing a letter

of protest following the storm that occurred at sea from June 9th-June 12th but before

Case 2:02-cv-04488-BMS Document 40 Filed 08/18/2003 Page 1 of 4
docking at Gloucester City. This creates a genuine issue of material fact as to Movant’s

liability. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

 

THOMAS MORE HOLLAND

DATED: August 15, 2003

Case 2:02-cv-04488-BMS Document 40 Filed 08/18/2003 Page 2 of 4
PROOF OF SERVICE

I, Thomas More Holland, Esquire, hereby certify that a true and correct electronic copy

of the foregoing Plaintiff’s Supplemental Argument in Opposition to Defendant’s Kent Line

Motion for Summary Judgment to the Court and:

Ann-Michele G. Higgins, Esquire

Rawle & Henderson LLP

The Widener Building

One South Penn Square

Philadelphia, PA 19107

A. Robert Degen, Esquire

Fox Rothschild O’Brien & Frankel

2000 Market Street - 10th floor

Philadelphia, PA 19103

Faustino Mattioni, Esquire

Mattioni, Ltd.

399 Market Street

2d Floor

Philadelphia, PA 19106

and to the pro se Defendants by regular mail:

Mr. Joseph Levy 

Trans Ocean Maritime Services Inc.

P.O. Box 560

Gloucester City, NJ 08030-0560

Ms. Maureen Levy 

Trans Ocean Maritime Services Inc.

P.O. Box 560

Gloucester City, NJ 08030-0560

August 14, 2003 

Date THOMAS MORE HOLLAND

Attorney for Plaintiff

Case 2:02-cv-04488-BMS Document 40 Filed 08/18/2003 Page 3 of 4
Case 2:02-cv-04488-BMS Document 40 Filed 08/18/2003 Page 4 of 4
Before the Second Division,

April 13, 1961

No. 65451.

#### H. Rosenhirsch Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 60/15883 and 60/18300 (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of synthetic filaments similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Empire Brushes, Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(42 Cust. Ct. 145, C.D. 2078), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
# C_2019044EN.01005602.xml

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/56

---

Order of the General Court of 16 November 2018 — OT v Commission

(Case T-576/16) (1)

((Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Candidature submitted for the post of Director of the EMCDDA - Rejection of the candidature - Lis pendens - Rejection of a request for assistance - No interest in bringing proceedings - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded))

(2019/C 44/72)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: OT (represented by: D. Sobor, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Simonetti and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 270 TFEU and seeking, on the one hand, annulment (i) of ‘the decision of 26 September 2014 of [the Commission] refusing to accept the [a]pplicant’s candidature for the post of Director of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction’ (EMCDDA), (ii) of the decision of 9 April 2015, by which the Commission rejected her complaint against that decision and the request for assistance, and, (iii) of the decision of 22 October 2015, by which the Commission rejected her complaint against the rejection of her request for assistance, and, on the other hand, compensation in respect of the material and non-material harm allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | OT shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

OT shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 383, 17.10.2016 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under number F-4/16 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).

---
EXHIBIT 23.2
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



We consent to the  incorporation  by  Registration  Statement  of Hyde  Athletic
Industries,  Inc.  on Forms  S-8 (file  numbers  33-50922,  33-61532,  33-66482,
33-80726,  333-33485)  of our  report  dated  April 2, 1998 on our audits of the
financial statements and financial statement schedule of Saucony SP Pty, Ltd. as
of January 2, 1998 and January 3, 1997 and for the years ended  January 2, 1998,
January 3, 1997 and  January 5, 1996 which  report is  included  in this  Annual
Report on Form 10-K.



/s/ Grant Thornton
Grant Thornton
Chartered Accountants


/s/ B R Gordon
B R Gordon
Partner

Sydney, Australia
April 2, 1998
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 6, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-41187

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

SANDRA AYALA-CORDOVA,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas 

USDC No. 5:05-CR-1835

--------------------

Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Sandra AyalaCordova raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres

v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate

criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance

is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Brian R. Ervine,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of EvolvingSystems, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30,2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-Qfairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results ofoperations of Evolving Systems, Inc.

 
| /s/ BRIAN R. ERVINE                                                      |   |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Brian R. Ervine                                                          |   |
| Executive Vice  President and Chief Financial and Administrative Officer |
| August 4, 2009                                                      |   |

 

 

This certificationis furnished with this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent requiredby such Act, be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). Such certification willnot be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under theSecurities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extentthat we specifically incorporate it by reference.

 

----
No. 47805.

#### Protests 678071-G, etc., of A. D. Cohen Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain of the items in question consist of 8-bu. paper hats, and following *Caradine*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 69, C. D. 664), the protests were sustained.
Exhibit 32.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Merrill Lynch Preferred
Capital Trust III (the "Trust") and Merrill Lynch Preferred Funding III, L.P.
for the period ended March 26, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Haig J. Nargesian,
Regular Trustee of the Trust, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
    of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
    respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Trust.





                              MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED CAPITAL TRUST III


                              By:  /s/ HAIG J. NARGESIAN
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                              Name:    Haig J. Nargesian *
                              Title:   Regular Trustee









Dated: May 6, 2004
__________________

* Haig J. Nargesian functions as the equivalent of the Chief Executive Officer
  and Chief  Financial  Officer of the Trust for  purposes  of Section  906
  of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board
of Directors of Husky Energy Inc.

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (No. 333-157389)
on Form F-9 of Husky Energy Inc. and inclusion in this annual report on Form 40-F of:



| |  |  | our audit report dated February 3, 2010, on the consolidated balance sheets of Husky Energy Inc. as at December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007 and
the consolidated statements of earnings and comprehensive income, changes in shareholders equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2009,
| | - |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | our Comments by Auditors for United States readers on Canada-United States Reporting Differences, dated February 3, 2010,
| | - |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | our Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm dated February 3, 2010 on the effectiveness of internal control over financial
reporting as of December 31, 2009,
| | - |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | our Report on the Reconciliation to Accounting Principles Generally Accepted in the United States dated February 3, 2010,
| | - |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

each of which is contained in this annual report on Form 40-F of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2009.



|                     
|---------------------
|                     
|/s/ KPMG LLP         
|KPMG LLP             
|Chartered Accountants
|Calgary, Canada      
|February 24, 2010
# Main

&"ARIAL,Bold"&8Bulletin 2020-15	&"ARIAL,Bold"&8Reclassified Statement of Changes in Net Position	&"ARIAL,Bold"&8June 2020

# Footnotes and Additional Inform
AFS-10-385-E 

Oct 14 2010 

 Exemption No. 9806A 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2007-29267 

Mr. Stephen McLure 

Director of Operations 

Business Air, Inc. d.b.a. AirNow 

2563 Walloomsac Road 

Bennington, VT 05201 

Dear Mr. McLure: 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption 

No. 9806. It explains the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists the conditions 

and limitations. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated August 26, 2010, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

on behalf of Business Air, Inc. d.b.a. AirNow, Inc. (AirNow) for an extension of Exemption 

No. 9806. That exemption from § 61.45(a)(1)(i) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations 

allows AirNow to conduct type rating flight checks in either of two versions of the 

Embraer 110 (EMB-110) aircraft to satisfy the requirements under § 61.45. 

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons 

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a 

precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to AirNow. 

Our Decision 

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 9806 

remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the 
 2

authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has 

delegated to me, I grant your petition, subject to the following conditions and limitations. 

Conditions and Limitations 

1. Provisions of this exemption apply to EMB-110 aircraft only. 

2. Crews utilizing this exemption must be trained and qualified on all differences 

between or among the variants of the EMB-110 aircraft operated by AirNow and to 

the standards required by part 135, on-demand, all cargo operations. 

The Effect of Our Decision 

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 9806 to January 31, 2013, unless 

sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Raymond Towles 

Acting Director, Flight Standards 

 Service
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



The undersigned, Maureen D. Howley, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Managing Owner, Preferred Investment Solutions Corp. (the Managing
Owner), of World Monitor Trust  Series A (Series A), hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | Series As Quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Quarterly Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Series A.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                 
|-------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Maureen D. Howley                            
|Maureen D. Howley                                
|Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|November 14, 2005